From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753943AbZEYNUg (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 09:20:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751305AbZEYNU3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 09:20:29 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:47105 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249AbZEYNU3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 09:20:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] U300 sched_clock implementation From: Peter Zijlstra To: Linus Walleij Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Thomas Gleixner , John Stultz In-Reply-To: <1243256510.26820.679.camel@twins> References: <63386a3d0905112337p2d426481o5f9bf9b9489cc57e@mail.gmail.com> <63386a3d0905231446h245bb4a9gec111f68a74a44e4@mail.gmail.com> <1243151839.26820.642.camel@twins> <63386a3d0905250513q6ca56eeepcf7bebe46c447fb4@mail.gmail.com> <1243256510.26820.679.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:20:27 +0200 Message-Id: <1243257627.26820.683.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 15:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:13 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > 2009/5/24 Peter Zijlstra : > > > > > On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 23:46 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > > >> This overrides the global sched_clock() symbol in the Linux > > >> scheduler with a local implementation which takes advantage of > > >> the timesource in U300 giving a scheduling resolution of 1us. The > > >> solution is the same as found in the OMAP2 core code. > > > > > > We assume sched_clock() to return time in ns (e-9) resolution. > > > > Yep okay and in this case: > > > > >> + ret = (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles(); > > >> + ret = (ret * clocksource_u300_1mhz.mult_orig) >> > > >> + clocksource_u300_1mhz.shift; > > >> + return ret; > > > > (mult_orig >> shift) == 1000 > > Ah, ok -- missed that little detail ;-) > > > So for each cycle in cyclecount register we return 1000 * cycles > > i.e 1000ns. > > > > If it looks nicer we can of course simply: > > return (unsigned long long) u300_get_cycles * 1000; > > > > But the question here is whether this resolution is enough for > > sched_clock() or if it is irrelevant to override sched_clock() > > if it cannot schedule with better precision than 1000 ns. > > No anything better than jiffies is good, 1us certainly is worth the > trouble. One note, sched_clock() is assumed to be _cheap_. Now I assume you knew that and chose a suitable clocksource. But that is the reason this isn't generic, non of the 'stable' clocksources on x86 are fast enough to use as sched_clock. Of course, x86 isn't the only arch and if enough architectures do show this pattern, we could indeed think about doing this in generic code.